CAUTION: Yen's blog contains harsh language and even harsher notions of propriety. Reader discretion is advised.
Breaking news, Oct 30th 2012.
>Disney acquires Lucasfilm.
>Star Wars Episode VII slated for 2015.
In answer to your question, I don't know.
I'm pretty much trying to stay out of the discussion until the dust settles (despite this blogpost), as the geekier side of the internet combusts in what is mainly opinionated speculation (from what I've seen, anyway). I've already seen enough kneejerk Lucasbashing and witty 'putting Mouse Ears On A Star Wars Thing™ because that's what everything will be like from now on' pictures to keep me out of it.
The bottom line is:
• George Lucas handed over the LFL reins to Kathleen Kennedy back at the start of June, prior to his 'retirement'. We knew something big was on the cards then.
• This breaking news has been known at Lucasfilm also since June. Now that the news has gone public, that staff at LFL seem fairly happy, as well as other other influential media types. It'll be interesting to see which high-profilers aren't happy with it, of course (not you, Pegg, you've already burned your flag).
• Lucasfilm and Disney have a partnership going back to 1987 with the Star Tours ride, and they've been producing cross-over merchandise (yes, Mouse Ears On A Star Wars Thing™) for their on-park stores for years now.
• Disney also bought Marvel. Back in 2009. Avengers turned out alright though, didn't it? Potential Movie-of-2012 material, if we're being honest. That's because although Disney own Marvel, they let Marvel run Marvel. Disney are a business, and they see the opportunity to let Marvel carry on being itself and making money for them. I have no reason to believe that the Lucasfilm deal is any different. Buying into one of the most powerful and long-lasting marketing franchises in history, and then changing that would be monumentally stupid. And you don't have to like Disney, but they're not stupid.
• Yes, it is all about money. Sorry to burst that bubble. I know many people believe the entertainment industry is built on kittens, clouds and lollipops, but I'm afraid that isn't the case. And yes, I suppose the slew of merchandising around the Star Wars Prequel Trilogy really does piss all over the sanctity of your childhood Star Wars figures. Duvet covers. Pencil cases. Toothbrushes. Tape dispensers. T-shirts. Rub-on transfers. Badges. Soundtrack albums. Marvel comics. Multiple video releases of the same three films. Dairylea tie-in promotions. Burger King tie-in promotions. You get my drift.
So while I'm cool with the business changing hands at the top-level, and I'm certainly cool with 'increased output' in the theatrical and home markets, I have to admit I'm extremely hesitant about Episode Seven. Irrespective of what George Lucas said back in the day about nine/twelve movies, you've got to admit that Return of the Jediis kind of a great ending point to the cinematic saga, chronologically speaking. As a devoted reader of the comics and novels, I can confidently say that the next 30-40 or so years after RotJ is pretty much mapped out in terms of the central characters. Now, Episode VII doesn't mean that all the existing Expanded Universe material couldn't just be scrapped/rebooted, and it also doesn't mean that the story can't focus on secondary/tertiary/unknown characters in the GFFA (Boba Fett movie, anyone?). Alternatively, you could just set the story several hundred/thousand years in the future, but how tight can you make the episodic connection then? (The MORPG The Old Republic is set around 3500 years before the first Star Wars, which is fine, but it isn't called Episode -1)
The fact is, Episode VII won't be easy to implement smoothly, but then, it isn't my job to make sure it is. And if I don't like the direction Star Wars goes in, it won't diminish my love for what we've had so far. We'll* just have to wait and see, won't we*?
In short:
Am I happy that there's a future for Star Wars? Yes (there always was anyway).
Am I okay with Disney owning Lucasfilm? Yes.
Am I pleased about more Star Wars TV/movies? Yes.
Am I stoked that Episode VII is heading up that roster? I don't know. But hey, always in motion, is the future.
Thank you for reading this.
My name is Ian, and I'm a boy that loves Star Wars.
You can read about how and why here.
These are just my opinions, yours will vary. I hope.
*You.
DISCLAIMERS:
• ^^^ That's dry, British humour, and most likely sarcasm or facetiousness.
• This is a personal blog. The views and opinions expressed here represent my own thoughts (at the time of writing) and not those of the people, institutions or organisations that I may or may not be related with unless stated explicitly.
CAUTION: Yen's blog contains harsh language and even harsher notions of propriety. Reader discretion is advised.
RECKLESS LOVE - Sub89, Reading.
17th October, 2012
I haven't been to any gigs all year. All year. I think I can just make out the 18yr old Me tutting and calling me an old fart; Ne'er mind, Young Me is an idiot. Quality takes precedence over quantity these days, and like the proverbials, I've waited all year and now three come along at once.
I can't really review gigs as I always forget the order of set-lists, and I'm not one for standing by the sound-desk nodding appreciatively. Suffice it to say that Reckless Love were fucking phenomenal. Then again, I saw them two years earlier in the same venue and they were fucking phenomenal then, too.
So yeah. Here are some photos and that.
Click for big.
I'd do terrible, unforgivable things to see this band supporting Europe, I kid you not.
More stuff like this soon, with Bowling For Soup…
DISCLAIMERS:
• ^^^ That's dry, British humour, and most likely sarcasm or facetiousness.
• This is a personal blog. The views and opinions expressed here represent my own thoughts (at the time of writing) and not those of the people, institutions or organisations that I may or may not be related with unless stated explicitly.
CAUTION: Yen's blog contains harsh language and even harsher notions of propriety. Reader discretion is advised.
Looper (Huge Spoilers. Seriously.)
118 mins / Dir. Rian Johnson
Okay. You've had three weeks to see it, so I'm going to dish out the spoilers. You won't really get the rest of this post unless you've seen the film, and it'll ruin it if you haven't. There's a spoiler-free review of Looper here. All good? Splendid...
The Premise: 2044. Time travel hasn't been invented yet, but in 30 years, it will be. It will be instantly outlawed, and only used by the mob seeking to eliminate their enemies. As bodies are almost impossible to dispose of in 2074 (due to bio-tagging, etc, apparently), mobsters will zap their enemies back in time to pre-arranged locations and specialised assassins known as Loopers kill them the second they arrive. Tied, hooded and with blocks of silver strapped to their backs as payment for the Looper, they're despatched, relieved of their loot, and unceremoniously incinerated. The mob's enemy disappears in 2074, and a body is destroyed in 2044 that no-one's looking for as it doesn't exist, legally. Part of the deal with the assassins is a special clause written into their contract: that at some point, the mob will send back the Looper's future self (should they live that long) for termination. This avoids the loose ends that the gangsters don't need, and is known as 'closing your Loop'. Your future self will arrive with a bumper payment on his back (which you don't see until after you've killed him), and once that's cashed, you're released from your contract - free to enjoy your retirement over the next 30 years. Easy.
The Short Actuality: The five year old boy, Cid, is Joe as a child (Joe A). He witnesses his mother being killed by Bruce Willis (Joe C), when Joseph Gordon Levitt (Joe B) fails to stop him. This action sets Joe A (the child) on the disturbed, criminal path to become Joe B (the Looper), Joe C (the redeemer) and eventually Joe D (the Rainmaker). All of these lives intertwine to perpetuate themselves over the time between 2044 and 2074 until Joe B realises it can be stopped by him sacrificing himself at the point of his mother's murder.
Question One:Why send Loopers back to their young selves? This informs the assassin that they actually live for the next 30 years, and effectively makes them immortal in their own eyes. Any change to this (death by recklessness, excessive partying etc) would create a paradox and alter the timeline. By Abe's own admission, altering the future unnecessarily is not something they want to do. Surely a neater solution would be to send Looper One back to be disposed of by Looper Two etc, and keep it as anonymous and lowly-paid as the other killings? No paranoia, no paradoxes.
Question Two:If bodies are so difficult to dispose of in the future, how are the wide-hatted goon squad going to dispose of Bruce Willis's wife in 2074? They arrive to get Willis with handguns which they can't reasonably be expected to use by virtue of their very presence. Once they've clumsily slotted her, why don't they send her body back with him in the time machine? Which leads me to…
Question Three:Why send live targets back at all? Why not kill them in the barn in 2074 and zap the dead bodies back for disposal? We know non-live matter can be transported as the targets all arrive wearing clothes and packs of silver and/or gold. Killing people isn't the problem in 2074, only disposing of the bodies, and it'd be a lot less risky to do business this way.
Question Four:Isn't anyone else a little concerned by the fact that Joe has sex with his own mum? I mean, it's not like he becomes his own father or anything paradoxical like that, but if anything that just makes the whole situation pointless and even more weird. I know Cid claims Sara isn't his mother, but the kid's disturbed, five years old, and Sara's got a far more convincing account of events. His own mum.
Questions one to three, you can take your time with, but someone needs to look at question four sharpish.
Time is of the essence.
DISCLAIMERS:
• ^^^ That's dry, British humour, and most likely sarcasm or facetiousness.
• This is a personal blog. The views and opinions expressed here represent my own thoughts (at the time of writing) and not those of the people, institutions or organisations that I may or may not be related with unless stated explicitly.
A second viewing for Wallflower as I dragged Mrs Blackout along to see what could well be my favourite film of the year. There's not really a lot to add to my first review, but that's not to say it was any less enjoyable. Knowing the backstories of the characters meant I wasn't as overwhelmed with each revelation of a destroyed childhood, but I got more out of the humour and the details because of it. Watching the film again also reinforced my suspicion that the film definitely isn't going to be for everybody, so outside of this blog, I probably won't be recommending it to people who aren't interested anyway.
For the record, Mrs Blackout enjoyed it very much.
But seriously, who doesn't know Heroes by Bowie? It's not a 'new' song at the time the film takes place. "I found the tunnel song!" Sam exclaims excitedly as she hands a cassette to Charlie. "Indeed," Charlie thinks, "and I hope your new friends aren't letting you hear the bloody end of that one, Mrs Eclectic Taste In Music..."
See the film, that'll make sense.
See the film. Today. Go.
DISCLAIMERS:
• ^^^ That's dry, British humour, and most likely sarcasm or facetiousness.
• This is a personal blog. The views and opinions expressed here represent my own thoughts (at the time of writing) and not those of the people, institutions or organisations that I may or may not be related with unless stated explicitly.
How do you script an animated film with this title, and not put in a reference to an Eagles song? Maybe because the rest of your screenplay is working on a level so much higher, that you don't need to cheapen it with obvious, generic gags?
Oh. All the jokes are in the trailer. Yes, I know the trailer's only a minute and a quarter long. Yes, I know that minute and a quarter isn't all jokes. All the jokes are in the trailer.
The film's worst crime (and there are several), is how bland it is. The concept behind the setup is a fairly interesting one, but it swings half-heartedly into a father/daughter fable, with Dracula's little girl being the only character showing any trace of genuine emotion. It's sort of like a Tim Burton pastiche, made by a team who've only heard of Tim Burton from other people. And when I see Genndy (Samurai Jack) Tartakovsky's name at the helm, it makes me want to cry.
I still can't work out if this is an endorsement or a warning…
Adam Sandler and Andy Samberg overact to the point of irritation, and any subtlety that the supporting actors try and bring to the flat script is drowned out completely. Meanwhile, the clockwork story lurches along for 90 minutes, and the only thing I kept thinking throughout was "…why isn't this better?" Even the character designs are so generic that the merchandising will look a cheap rip-off of itself.
The only saving graces are some quite beautifully executed animation, and a nicely underplayed (if brief) nod to The Wedding Singer.
Oh, and then Adam Sandler does a rap at the end.
I can't hate it; the animation is smooth, the humour is broad, and Hotel Transylvania accomplishes exactly what it sets out to do. Although with such a dearth of ambition, you'd be amazed if it didn't. Acquitted by its own low standards.
DISCLAIMERS:
• ^^^ That's dry, British humour, and most likely sarcasm or facetiousness.
• This is a personal blog. The views and opinions expressed here represent my own thoughts (at the time of writing) and not those of the people, institutions or organisations that I may or may not be related with unless stated explicitly.
CAUTION: Yen's blog contains harsh language and even harsher notions of propriety. Reader discretion is advised.
Ruby Sparks 104 mins / Dir. Jonathan Dayton & Valerie Faris
When Calvin, a brilliant young writer, fears he may have peaked too soon and struggles to create anything, he meets Ruby who turns his world upside down. She is everything he's dreamed about...
Ruby Sparks isn't the chucklefest the trailer might suggest, but it's all the stronger for that. The jokes are there, but there's a greater sense of confusion as young Calvin tries to get his head around what he's created. He doesn't really succeed. The film is definitely kooky™, and quite often borderline irritating, but it's also very apparent that it's completely intentional (in fact, there isn't a story without that). It's difficult to define what's subtext when the story is entirely about subtext. The line between fantasy and reality is so blurred that I applaud the screenplay's (and the characters') refusal to rationalise or explain away the surreal events that unfold. If you try and put any of Ruby Sparks into a real-world context, you run the risk of missing the point of the film.
With strong performances from the leads and the supporting characters living up to their job description, it's beautifully believable for a story that isn't meant to be believable. While I didn't find it as emotionally engaging as Wallflower, it's still absolutely fascinating, and a joy to watch unfold.
'Kooky, but without taking it to Deschanel-levels. I approve wholeheartedly.'
DISCLAIMERS:
• ^^^ That's dry, British humour, and most likely sarcasm or facetiousness.
• This is a personal blog. The views and opinions expressed here represent my own thoughts (at the time of writing) and not those of the people, institutions or organisations that I may or may not be related with unless stated explicitly.
CAUTION: Yen's blog contains harsh language and even harsher notions of propriety. Reader discretion is advised.
Too general / too niche / too bandwagonning / too late*.
* Delete as appropriate.
DISCLAIMERS:
• ^^^ That's dry, British humour, and most likely sarcasm or facetiousness.
• This is a personal blog. The views and opinions expressed here represent my own thoughts (at the time of writing) and not those of the people, institutions or organisations that I may or may not be related with unless stated explicitly.
Why, oh why, didn't they adopt the Step Up strategy and call this 'Taken 2: Istanbul'? They missed a trick, there. Ah well.
As with its predecessor (which I watched for the first time last weekend), I found there to be a nasty layer of xenophobia* covering the whole film. In both installments, the lack of characterisation for the antagonists serves to paint them as "nasty foreigners", and they become cartoon punchbags for the righteous Bryan to smack, break and shoot for ninety minutes. The most painful of all is Rade Šerbedžija (you know him: Boris The Blade), who you've got to feel pretty sorry for as his typecasting hell drags him down to new lows. He's given a clichéd graveside speech about Revenge™ at the start of the film, which is followed up by his character being a weasely all-mouth-no-trousers type, right up to his final unconvincing scene. All other bad guys in Taken 2 are crudely drawn stereotypes, straight from the imaginations of Eastern-European-fearing Daily Mail readers. Naturally, Neeson's character kills them all. Hey, they deserve it.
My biggest beef with the film? It's entirely joyless. As much as Neeson looks outraged and vengeful, and as much as his adversaries are painted as not very nice people, I found no real engagement in him systematically killing them. If anything, it seems to get grubbier with each Albanian body hitting the floor, and the Turkish police being either completely inept or just not present (similar to the Parisian police, in that respect). This also points toward the stunning lack of character development in regards to Neeson's Bryan and his family. Other than seeing him having a barbecue with the guys every once in a while, and holding obvious father/daughter issues, we're meant to take it as read that he's morally untouchable; this despite the fact that he's ex-CIA and currently working freelance private security. Definitely not a mercenary, then. There's little doubt who's 'good' and who's 'bad' in Taken 2, but I find it particularly hard to sympathise with anyone other than his daughter's boyfriend…
Oh, and in addition to the ridiculous amount of gunfire let off in public here, Bryan gets his daughter (completely untrained in firearms and explosives) to set of three (three) grenades in public places, purely to judge distance/location. Yay for vigilantism! This is part of a series of eyebrow-raising moments that I can't be bothered to list, mainly because the rest of the film's so unpleasant.
At best, it's solidly below-average, but I'm also acutely aware that many of the reasons I didn't enjoy it are down to me, not the film-makers. Pffft.
If you liked Taken, you'll probably like this. It's more of the same, with everything that implies.
* For the record, my feelings on the first film were as follows: It's essentially a thinly veiled allegory for a country that can't handle its immigration problem, and thinks it'd be marvellous if America™ came in and sorted it out for them, because 'them forrins are up to no good'. Doesn't necessarily apply exclusively to France, it just did in this case. That's entirely my opinion, of course, and I'd be delighted to read your explanation of why that couldn't possibly be the case.
DISCLAIMERS:
• ^^^ That's dry, British humour, and most likely sarcasm or facetiousness.
• This is a personal blog. The views and opinions expressed here represent my own thoughts (at the time of writing) and not those of the people, institutions or organisations that I may or may not be related with unless stated explicitly.
When a movie opens with the titles set in a distressed-typewriter typeface, and an acoustic guitar over the top, you know you're in for a little bit of twee, a little bit of hipster, and… well, a whole lot of Twister™*1...
That pretty much sums the film up, and yet also woefully sells it short. It's everything the trailer makes you expect it to be, but it's so much more engaging than it lets on. All of the central characters are beautifully portrayed*2, and the story embraces emotion without relying on schmaltz to gloss things over. In fact, it's the twisting of the narrative that's the film's greatest strength. You don't love the protagonists in spite of their perceived faults, you love them because of them. It's not always a great idea for the writer of a novel to also pen the screenplay adaptation and direct the film, but in this case you get the impression that no-one else could have pulled it off as well as Chbosky.
As I've said, it's painfully hipster at times, with vinyl records, mix-tapes and Rocky Horror references all upping the kook-factor, but in the context of these characters trying to find themselves, it's part-and-parcel of the proceedings, and part of who you're watching. I had visions of Wallflower being hard work, but I'm very pleased to have been mistaken*3.
If you've ever felt like you can't quite fit in, this film is for you. I'm not sure how it'll stand up to repeated viewings, but I plan to find out.
Interested by the trailer? You'll love the film. If not, avoid.
*1Twister™. That's mine, but you can use it. You're welcome.
*2 Yeah, even Hermione, who failed to act as Hermione.
*3 That said, is it just me or is Joan Cusack slightly terrifying? I honestly had no idea where those scenes were going to go.
DISCLAIMERS:
• ^^^ That's dry, British humour, and most likely sarcasm or facetiousness.
• This is a personal blog. The views and opinions expressed here represent my own thoughts (at the time of writing) and not those of the people, institutions or organisations that I may or may not be related with unless stated explicitly.
